1. Professor Hack Ezell, Vice Chairman of Faculty Council, called the meeting
to order at 3:00PM.

2. Approximately 24 faculty members were in attendance. Prof. Ezell recapped
the purpose and formation of the Professional Standards Task Force. Faculty
Council had voted to postpone a decision on the report in order to involve the
faculty in an open meeting. The document was presented also to Academic Board
and was well received.

3. Prof. Ezell went through the document, noting minor changes in wording,
grammar, etc. Changes were made on pages 1, 2, 8, 16, and 22. (Those changes
are noted on the official copy of the document and kept with the minutes of the
Faculty Council.

4. Prof. Ezell then addressed the 16 questions/comments he had received
regarding the document. After all questions/comments were listed, faculty
members commented and made suggestions.

5. Questions (questions/comments from faculty at the meeting are in bold:

1. AAUP statement on academic freedom was removed from this document and placed
in the faculty manual because academic freedom applies to all aspects of
academic life, not just promotion and tenure. It was recommended that an
abbreviated state be replaced, with a reference to the longer statement
contained in the faculty manual.

2. Post tenure review. Faculty Council Subcommittee B is charged with
developing this document and plans to present it at the next FC meeting.

3. Relationship between college and departmental guidelines. Department
guidelines are to be in compliance with college guidelines.
a. college document contains some minimum guidelines below which departments
cannot go.
b. departmental guidelines should be appended to the college document.
c. this is usually part of the department head's discussion with FTPC.
d. departments are too different to set minimum guidelines.
e. include a statement that college-wide standards will be interpreted
according to each department's standards.

4. Why is the appeals process different for tenure and promotion? This was
designed so appeals are not made to the person who made the original decision.

5. Why is the timetable rarely followed? The timetable has been changed to
make it more feasible.

6. Five-year vs. sex-year tenure process. Faculty members who were hired under
the five-year plan have the option of choosing the six-year plan.

7. Vita should be included in each tenure/promotion dossier. Agreed.

8. Composition and appointment of appeals committee. Who makes
recommendations? FTPC solicits a list of all eligible senior faculty members,
then applies a "weighting" system to assure equitable representation.

9. Concern about the "weight" placed on student evaluation of teaching.

10. Concept of the "super prof"

11. ???

12. Faithful attendance at committee meetings. In the descriptions of service
to the college, change "faithful attendance" to "attends and contributes"
throughout document.

13. Concern that teaching criteria are "must" and scholarly engagement and
service are "may". Teaching is not an option. Scholarly engagement and
service are more discipline-related.

14. Concern over "supporting mission of the college" (p.?). Does not imply
blind obedience. On page 22, C4, Dismissal for Cause, strike reference to
"role model".

15. Clarify the fact that promotion to professor is more demanding than
promotion to associate.

16. Request to include section on "tenure after one semester" at the Dean,
Department Head, and senior professor level.

Concern was expressed that all information received in the tenure and promotion
process must be made available to candidates (p. 16, par. 2). The candidate
has the right to know all information being made available to FTPC. It should
be clear that the candidate has that right, and not be pressured to waive that
right. FPTC should have the right to solicit additional information, but the
candidate should know this. It was suggested that the offer be made to the
candidate to supply a list of names from which the department head can choose.

Other suggestions:
1. Page 5C. Rework wording to reflect "effective teaching.
2. Page 19, 4A, should read five "working" days.
3. Concern was expressed about FTPC decisions being overturned at higher levels
with no justification given. Prof. Ezell said it is now built into the
document that decisions cannot be overturned without justification.
4. Page 4, 2B. There was a question about what is more important. This is an
example of a general yet comprehensive statement so that each department can
tailor and interpret according to departmental standards. It was suggested to
add, "as stated in departmental document". It was further suggested that it be
made clear that departmental standards are available to FTPC, but that the
committee cannot be bound to those standards over college standards.
5. Page 2D, last paragraph. Delete "generally".